Originally Posted by
shiv.somashekhar
With all due respect, this does not meet the basic test of logic 101. This statement is as ridiculous as -
"Wundermonk can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that "Santa Claus is not real" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face".
And yet, you missed the fundamentals and contradicted yourself. The theist made the claim and the Carvaka rejects it for lack of evidence. The Carvaka has *nothing* to prove here - not unless you agree with your own absurd Santa Claus logic above.
Please take the time to read about "argumentum ad ignorantiam", Philosophic burden of proof and Russell's celestial teapot.
To be more clear, my exact statement was - The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.
Lokayata makes no claims; they only reject claims that cannot be proven - a point that you clearly missed. Feel free to prove otherwise.
Bookmarks